Skip to main content

Peer Review reports

From: Opinions on Kampo and reasons for using it – results from a cross-sectional survey in three Japanese clinics

Original Submission
4 Dec 2011 Submitted Original manuscript
5 Dec 2011 Author responded Author comments - Claudia WITT
Resubmission - Version 2
5 Dec 2011 Submitted Manuscript version 2
30 Jan 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Jackie Wootton
7 Feb 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Kazeem Oshikoya
9 Feb 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Syed Shahzad Hasan
21 Mar 2012 Author responded Author comments - Claudia WITT
Resubmission - Version 3
21 Mar 2012 Submitted Manuscript version 3
Resubmission - Version 4
Submitted Manuscript version 4
Resubmission - Version 5
Submitted Manuscript version 5
7 Apr 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Kazeem Oshikoya
14 Aug 2012 Author responded Author comments - Claudia WITT
Resubmission - Version 6
14 Aug 2012 Submitted Manuscript version 6
Resubmission - Version 7
Submitted Manuscript version 7
12 Sep 2012 Reviewed Reviewer Report - Kazeem Oshikoya
14 Nov 2012 Author responded Author comments - Claudia WITT
Resubmission - Version 8
14 Nov 2012 Submitted Manuscript version 8
Resubmission - Version 9
Submitted Manuscript version 9
Resubmission - Version 10
Submitted Manuscript version 10
Resubmission - Version 11
Submitted Manuscript version 11
Resubmission - Version 12
Submitted Manuscript version 12
Resubmission - Version 13
Submitted Manuscript version 13
9 Mar 2013 Author responded Author comments - Claudia WITT
Resubmission - Version 14
9 Mar 2013 Submitted Manuscript version 14
Publishing
9 May 2013 Editorially accepted
16 May 2013 Article published 10.1186/1472-6882-13-108

You can find further information about peer review here.

Back to article page